This piece has been prompted by reports that the USAF has already flown a demonstrator of the first stage of its Next Generation Air Dominance Fighter.

The US programme is a bold and innovative attempt to break the mould of increasingly long and complex development cycles for advanced military aircraft. This would include the approach of using virtual prototyping, modelling and assessment to evaluate systems before building physical hardware. This approach offers the potential to identify and correct issues before committing to physical prototyping, as well as the prospect of a more rapid iteration to an implementable design.

The intent is to develop and field new versions, and adaptations, of a family of systems, taking advantage of virtual prototyping, so that anticipated rapid advances in software-driven capability can be more rapidly accessed. It is also clearly anticipated that the NGAD capability will not simply reside in one super-platform, but will be delivered by a system of co-operating platforms and systems.

Two years ago, in a piece for Hush-Kit on Air Power in 2030, I suggested the following for the future direction of US Air superiority, then referred to as F-X:

US – future systems

As we have seen from the earlier discussion, there is an emerging capability gap around USAF air superiority systems, given the lack of a programme for a capability upgrade to the F-22. A replacement programme, F-X, is in existence, but little hard information is available. There is also a lack of clarity about future US Navy plans to replace the F/A-18 E/F/G under the F/A-XX programme.

USAF 6th Generation Fighter F-X

Role: Air Superiority (Penetrating Air Combat)
Configuration: Unknown
2018 Status: In development (?)
2030 Status: Entry to service

The limited information available suggests that the USAF is seeking a system-of-systems approach, where a range of sensor, communications, electronic, cyber, platform(s) and weapons would deliver its future capability. There is an indication that the platform element of this would have significantly greater range and payload than the current F-22, while retaining the ability to be both stealthy and supersonic.

One enabler for this is seen as the use of variable cycle propulsion systems, offering modes at higher bypass ratio for the cruise, and lower bypass ration for take-off, acceleration and dash. Adjunct systems are likely, and might include long-range ground-based air defence systems; stand-off, and possibly space-based, sensor systems; and, speculatively, some autonomous systems which might deliver targeting, communications relay or EW capabilities.

Given US conviction of its superiority in LO technologies, this aspect is likely to be emphasised. Consequently, I would not anticipate a J-20 style solution as the US believe canards too much of a compromise in this area. There has been substantial research in unconventional control devices for LO systems, and there is a US desire to avoid vertical tail surfaces if possible.

Based on all this – a large highly swept delta, with minimal tail surfaces, and active use of innovative control systems appears likely. To be effective, such a platform would need to carry highly effective and long-range AAMs, and would be supported by networked detection, tracking and targeting systems, as well as stand-off electronic warfare and cyber capabilities.

Prototyping, technology development and risk reduction activities are likely to be taking place, possibly as Black programmes.

I’d stand by all this, which seems to reflect closely what is known of the NGAD programme so far.

The mechanism for rapid development and evolution of the system, and presumably its other components too, is credible. It certainly resembles the aspirations of others in this field (BAE Systems were trialling an approach called GHOST, based on virtual prototyping, 20 years ago).

Because such a high proportion of the proposed capability will be software-enabled, it is likely that any NGAD platform, sensor or system will be dependent, not only on the robust development and validation of its initial code, but progressive development will require multiple further software developments and enhancements, not just on individual platforms and sensors, but also on other elements of the integrated system-of-systems.

This will place great emphasis on getting the initial architecture right, and ensuring that the entire system-of-systems is robust as additional capability is added. In my view software development, integration and validation has been the most under-rated risk in the JSF programme, and hence has been the area to which many delays can be traced. Perhaps this is the key technical challenge in the programme, and it is certainly critical if the pace of development is to be rapid.

Organisationally, however, real progress in shortening design cycles is also dependent on shortening the parallel Military, Defense Department, and Congressional decision-making cycles, which may actually pace such programmes. This is, perhaps, a second area where a real break-through is required.

Other elements to stress would be the intent to build a cyber-warfare (and cyber-resistant) networked capability, and the extensive use of off-board sensor, EW, communications and possibly weapons platforms. Extensive use is likely of data and information fusion, to allow targeting of, and by, third parties, and also (as outlined in another Hush_Kit article by myself and Dr Ron Smith link) to allow cooperative detection and targeting of stealthy combatants.

The Loyal Wingman, in development by Boeing in Australia, is but one of a number of emergent UAV projects which might provide adjuncts to the manned NGAD capability. While significant attention has been given to the potential use of LO UAVs as strike platforms, their use as air combat weapons carriers, and additional sensor platforms, is certainly not out of the question.

Here’s a new thing! An exclusive Hush-Kit newsletter delivered straight to your inbox. Hot aviation gossip, opinion, warplane technology updates, madcap history and other insights from the world of aviation by @Hush_Kit Sign up here

This area has been examined in the past – while no one bought into a fairly widely-touted Lockheed Martin proposal for an unmanned F-16 some decades ago, research efforts in the UK, and doubtless the US and others, have examined unmanned co-operating air-to-air combat UAVs in the past. With the technology capabilities for third-party targeting, data-linking, and co-operative use of sensors already fielded in the F-35 and other current platforms, it seems more than ever a plausible option. Indeed, the BAE Systems LANCA (Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft) project, which is itself part of the Tempest programme, explicitly foreshadows the use of adjunct systems in air combat.

Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here

Implementing armed air-combat UAV wingmen would require permissive rules of engagement, but with an explicit aspiration of Global Air Dominance, one can easily imagine the US going down this path.

It is likely that advantage will be taken of the inherently large usable internal volume of delta configurations to carry, not only fuel for long range, but also probably multiple weapons bays, enabling both an anti-air and a strike capability. It would not be surprising if the weapons bays were quite large, allowing the flexibility to accommodate future hypersonic weapons. Similarly, it may be expected that early iterations of the design would have additional internal bays set aside for future sensors, growth avionics and computing capability, to provide a sound basis for future evolution of the capability.

A second input to this discussion of the NGAD system comes from the slide below.

I find myself in pretty broad agreement with the suggestions in the slide, except the indication that the platform might be hypersonic. Hypersonic systems with warfighting capability still appear to be difficult in a number of areas including propulsion, sensors, weapons carriage and release, not to mention materials and structures.

From a cost and time point of view, the whole direction of the programme appears to be reliant on multiple incremental steps rather than large leaps of faith such as might be required to take on manned hypersonic air combat. Finally, any hope of Infra-Red stealth would disappear with the aerodynamic heating experienced in atmospheric hypersonic flight. This is not to say that a hypersonic boost-glide vehicle might not be part of the mix for a future USAF. I just can’t see such a system coming out of this type of programme.

^{This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donate here.  It only takes a moment and we notice your love. Recommended donation £15.}

Pre-order your copy of the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.

Similarly, I am sure that the NGAD system will have some laser capability, as laser dazzle systems are already widely available (although packaging for a stealthy fighter might still be a development area). I am less convinced that the technology for airborne weapons capability is available, but the incremental approach adopted is presumably intended to allow for future developments like this, should they become available.

Finally, I believe the US would seek to avoid the use of the canard surfaces shown, and would prefer other means of controlling the aircraft. The requirements for control are likely to be quite different from those of current air superiority fighters. Given the intent to operate as a system of systems, one might envisage a fully developed NGAD platform operating as the command and control node, using cooperating unmanned sensor, EW and weapons platforms to deliver both a permissive environment and, as far as possible, weapons effects. The principle role of the crewed NGAD platform would be to provide human-in-the-loop decision-making, enabling the whole system to respond to the mission situation and threat response.

The NGAD platform itself would be optimised for stealth rather than manouevrability, and, I suggest, would only seek to engage in BVR air combat, and perhaps strike using stand-off weapons. Consequently, control requirements are unlikely to include aggressive manoeuvring, dog-fighting, and high-g manoeuvres. Instead, the emphasis is likely to be on providing effortless and largely automated control, using stealthy effectors, and freeing up crew attention to manage the tactical system-of-systems.

These effectors might include thrust vectoring, vortex flaps, and a number of emerging technologies, possibly including air jets as in the BAE Systems MAGMA project, circulation control, or shape-changing structures.

Differential flap or airbrake deflections are another feasible approach, but would probably be avoided in the interest of maintaining low signature.

For completeness, I attach my thoughts on the US Navy F/A-XX program, also from 2018:

F/A-XX

Role: Multi-role (Air Defence, Strike, EW)
Configuration: Unknown
2018 Status: In development (?)
2030 Status: Entry to service

The F/A-XX program reflects a US Navy need to replace the F/A-18 E, F, and G in the mid-2020s as these platforms reach their service lives. Compared to the USAF requirement for a 6th gen fighter, the future F/A-XX is likely to constrained by carrier deck size and possible weight constraints, and also by the necessity to operate within the deployed environment of the carrier battle group.

The available material discussing the project expresses similar aspirations to F-X in terms of the system being networked and integrated with other components in order to achieve the required capability effects. That said, there are suggestions that the US Navy may seek a somewhat more agile system that that proposed for the USAF.

There are some interesting programmatic issues, not least the question as to why the Navy doesn’t simply acquire more F-35C to replace the Super Hornets. My guess is that the Navy will seek to have a program which draws on the technologies being developed for F-X, but will seek to acquire a Navy-specific solution rather than a common system.

On configuration, I think a Navy F/A-XX would be smaller and more agile than the Air Force F-X. It will also need compromises to be made to achieve the deck landing and take-off requirements, and these may result in a somewhat less stealthy solution than the F-X.

Prototyping, technology development and risk reduction activities are likely to be taking place, possibly as Black programs.

An interesting aspect of Blue-Water Navy operations is the likely need for an autonomous, and preferably stealthy, refuelling system to enable CAP patrols of worthwhile duration and stand-off, to assist in providing Air Defence for the Task Group. This requirement may be a driver for the early development of such a capability, with active programs being conducted by the US Navy, USAF, Airbus, and in China.

Jim Smith

Jim Smith had significant technical roles in the development of the UK’s leading military aviation programmes from ASRAAM and Nimrod, to the JSF and Eurofighter Typhoon. He was also Britain’s technical liaison to the British Embassy in Washington, covering several projects including the Advanced Tactical Fighter contest. His latest book is available here.

Pre-order your copy of the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.

Sadly, we are again way behind our funding targets. This site is entirely funded by donations from people like you. We have no pay wall, adverts (any adverts you see on this page are not from us) or subscription and want to keep it that way– please donate here to keep this site going. You can really help. 

Thank you.

Here’s a new thing! An exclusive Hush-Kit newsletter delivered straight to your inbox. Hot aviation gossip, opinion, warplane technology updates, madcap history and other insights from the world of aviation by @Hush_Kit Sign up here:

The US V-22 Osprey is a class of aircraft unto itself as it is the only manned tilt-rotor in service. Former Head of Future Projects at Westland Helicopters Ron Smith argues there’s a reason for that: it offers little and costs a king’s ransom.

The V-22 Osprey is a tilt rotor design that is used by the US Marine Corps and Air Force and 39 CMV-22 aircraft are being procured by the US Navy. The Japanese Self Defense Forces are acquiring five aircraft, Indonesia has ordered the type and Israel is very interested.

The V-22 has two large engines (6,150 hp), one mounted on each wing-tip, driving a 38 ft diameter three bladed propeller. The angle of the engine nacelles can be varied from in line with the wing up to ninety degrees to the wing to enable the aircraft to take-off and land vertically. In fact, the nacelles can tilt beyond the vertical by some 7.5 degrees to allow rearward flight or hovering in a tail wind.

So we have an aircraft that can operate like a conventional twin-engine turboprop aircraft in cruising flight and can hover like a helicopter and take-off and land vertically. That sounds like a great idea, doesn’t it?

Hover analysis

There are a couple of design issues, however. When hovering, the rotor diameters are smaller than one would expect for a helicopter in the same weight class. The V-22 has a maximum vertical take-off weight of 47,500 lb and can carry 24 seated troops.

The rotor diameter is restricted by the need for its tips to be clear of the fuselage when flying as a conventional aircraft in forward flight. This results in a higher disc loading (weight over rotor area) of around 21 lb/sq ft than would be expected for a helicopter in this weight class. This equates to reduced hover efficiency and a greater downwash (wake) velocity beneath the rotor.

The efficiency of the rotors in the hover is also suffers from the fact that the blade twist has to be a compromise between that required for an efficient hover and that required for efficient cruise flight. A second penalty arises because the wing blocks part of the airflow down from the rotor, creating a downward force that opposes the rotor lift.

My comparison helicopter is the relatively old Sikorsky CH-53D. This aircraft weighs 33,500 lb, has a rotor diameter of 72 ft 2.8 in and can carry 38 – 55 troops. The disc loading of the CH53D is around 9 lb/sq ft, under half that of the V-22. Now, the power required to hover depends on disc loading so that the V-22 will inevitably require significantly more power to hover at a given weight.

The installed power of the V-22 is (maximum) 2 X 6,150 hp or 12,300 hp total, the total maximum continuous power is 11,780 hp. By comparison, the installed power of the CH-53 is 2 x 3,925 hp, a total of 7,850 hp. The upshot is that the V-22 is 40% heavier than a CH-53, has 57% more installed power but carries around half the number of troops.

Forward Flight

I can hear voices shouting “but you’re missing the whole point!” The whole point being that the V-22 can fly like a fixed wing aircraft and land vertically when it arrives. The V-22 can cruise in airplane mode at 250 kt, which is 100 kt faster than the CH-53D’s 150 kt. The range of the V-22 is quoted as 879 nautical miles compared with a figure of 540 nautical miles for the CH-53D. Tactical mission profiles will be quite different, but there will still be a significant range advantage.

One big tactical benefit that accrues for expeditionary operations is that the assault can be mounted from further off-shore, allowing the fleet assets to be less vulnerable to any anti-ship missiles that the enemy may have. The speed and range of the V-22 allow the same tempo to be achieved from a greater stand-off range.

How does the V-22 compare with a medium STOL turboprop transport? My choice is the Alenia C-27J Spartan. The Spartan take-off weight is 67,200 lb, with 2 X 4,640 hp engines (9,280 hp total). It can carry 60 troops and cruise at 315 kt over a range of 950 nm. So, despite its higher weight, the Spartan is 65 kt faster than an Osprey on 75% of the power, while carrying 2.5 X the number of troops over a greater range. Roughly speaking, you could buy three C-27Js for the price of two V-22s.

Pre-order your copy of the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.

But, But, But

Yes – the V-22 CAN take-off vertically and it CAN fly 100 kt faster than a transport helicopter and it CAN land vertically on arrival. However, as we have seen, it makes a pretty inefficient helicopter and a pretty modest transport aircraft.

So, when do you need its capabilities? There are two clear military missions that come to mind: Combat Search and Rescue (and the closely related casualty evacuation) is the first role, where high transit speeds, long range and vertical take-off and landing are likely to be of critical importance.

The other role is insertion and extraction of Special Forces. Having no tail rotor and no Chinook blade slap the V-22 can achieve higher transit speeds with lower audible signatures than conventional helicopters in this role.

In Marine assault operations, it is doing the same job as a helicopter (albeit with a somewhat less payload for its size), but its real benefit seems to be to reduce the vulnerability of the assault fleet.

It would also be useful for Coastguard and Maritime rescue operations, but the organisations that provide these services are often not funded to a level that would support the use of such a complex platform.

In my opinion, you could use the aircraft for ASW operations, provided you used air-dropped sonobuoys (passive or active), rather than requiring active dipping sonar. This suggests deep water operations, rather than shallow water and littoral operations (Atlantic and Pacific, rather than Mediterranean or North Sea operations).

Its relatively inefficient hover performance and the associated high downwash velocities suggest that the Osprey would not be the preferred choice for underslung load operations and ship to ship operations.

The US Navy are buying the CMV-22B for this role, however, with the justification that the aircraft can deliver cargo direct to smaller vessels, whereas the current C-2 Greyhound can only operate to and from aircraft carriers. The C-2 therefore requires helicopters to perform onward distribution to smaller vessels across the fleet.

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

Other Considerations – Cost and Safety

One might say that the high development cost over a long period of time is a ‘sunk cost’ and is therefore not really relevant. Nevertheless, from a first flight date of 19 March 1989 it took until 13 June 2007 (18 years) before MV-22 Initial Operational Capability was achieved. The programme development cost is quoted as having been around $27 billion, with a fly-away cost (FY2015) of $72 million.

This fly-away cost is significantly higher than for a large helicopter. The larger Sikorsky CH-53E (greater than 70.000 lb take-off weight) has a quoted average unit cost of around $25 million. A civil AW101 is reputed to cost $28 million, a military example, rather more. Comparisons of published cost figures are notoriously difficult, but it is clear that the V-22 is likely to be significantly costly compared with a helicopter procurement.

The V-22 is a complex mechanism, with a high degree of automation and redundancy. As any reliability engineer knows, redundancy is a double-edged sword. The probability of a critical system continuing functioning after one or two system failures is greatly increased by having duplex, triplex or quadruplex redundancy, On the other hand, the probability of having a failure for a given inherent reliability is doubled, or tripled, or increased four-fold as a result. This means that a highly redundant system will have an increased failure rate.

^{This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donate here.  It only takes a moment and we notice your love. Recommended donation £15.}

This can be mitigated by the use of intelligent health and usage monitoring systems that can provide early warning of incipient failures and can assist trouble shooting by flagging up the nature and location of the problem. So automation, redundancy and monitoring reduce crew workload, and increase safety, but add more black boxes to maintain and repair.

On the safety side, helicopters have a number of critical items, particularly in the dynamic system, where failure under static or fatigue loads is likely to be catastrophic. Examples would include loss of control to main or tail rotor; rotor head or rotor blade failure; and main gearbox failure.

In the V-22 (or other tilt rotor configurations) these issues, which drive inspection regimes and introduce life limited components are still valid concerns. A transmission cross shaft is provided to enable the good engine to power both rotors following a single engine failure. After such a failure, the aircraft would transition to airplane mode and ultimately make a rolling landing with the nacelles partially raised to keep the blade tips clear of the ground.

There were aircraft losses in development and a total of 12 V-22 aircraft have been destroyed in hull-loss accidents. In mature service, the aircraft seems to be performing as advertised, and safely, albeit with a significant maintenance overhead relating to the systems’ complexity.

Summary

The V-22 is in service and working well. In its own way, it is iconic. It’s a new configuration, it turns heads, it folds up on board ship. It passes my test that, every time I see one, I photograph it. Think of the Harrier, or Concorde, F-117, or B-2 – it’s just not every day that an entirely new configuration makes it to full operational service.

The V-22 is costly to procure and operate and its ‘stand out’ roles appear to be limited to CSAR, CASEVAC and support to Special Forces. Its speed and range in the Marine assault role primarily reduces the vulnerability of the assault fleet.

Where vertical take-off and landing is not essential, conventional medium STOL transports appear to offer a more efficient solution. Where high speed is not required, conventional helicopters may be more efficient at substantially lower costs.

Getting the aircraft from first flight to IOC required a substantial and sustained investment effort over some eighteen years. Now that it is established in operation there is some pressure for it to take on other roles.

It is hard for this author to believe that the V-22 will ever be efficient in ASW, COD or slung load operations. Its fuselage volume and cross-section also mitigate against the transport of larger troop units or heavy cargo.

^{This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donate here.  It only takes a moment and we notice your love. Recommended donation £15.}

The money has been invested – use it for what it’s good for. It might be a comparatively niche solution, but it seems justified (at least for the United States armed forces) in its current roles (except, perhaps, COD).

It may be a triumph of money over common sense, but it is an undoubted triumph, nevertheless. (A bit like Concorde, really).

Pre-order your copy of the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.

The Sukhoi Su-34 does not have an exact Western equivalent. With a strategic un-refuelled range and agility that could challenge an F-16 it is a formidable and unusual warplane. Nicknamed the ‘Duck’ (or ‘Ootka’ in Russian) for its flattened nose the Su-34 boasts a mini-kitchen, sleeping space for the crew and a toilet (well at least in the language of a cynical estate agent it does!). It can carry 12 and half tons of weapons and 130 of the type fly with the Russian Air Force. It’s an extremely handsome machine and one that you deserve to look at while you sip your morning coffee.

In May 1941 into the Aircraft Warning Service, the civilian arm of the Army’s Ground Observer Corps was formed. Highly trained in aircraft recognition their vital skill quickly spilled into a hobby that spread across America. We celebrate the birth of the American aviation spotting obsession with this authentic reproduction of the badge worn with pride by this learnt to recognise every warplane in a glance. This is the badge of the insider, and one that marks the true military aviation enthusiast.

Dedicated to those Americans who looked skyward in defence of their nation.

A high quality tea towel decorated with the original ‘blood chit’ design handed to British aircrews flying missions over Soviet controlled regions in World War II.

Disclaimer: We cannot guarantee the safety of aircrew who use these if downed over modern Russia.

WISH TO UPGRADE TO RECEIVE THESE SUPERB REWARDS? Here’s how

1. Log in to your Unbound account
   2. Go to your supported projects page
   3. Find the book that you want to upgrade and click manage project

In 2015, Research Fellow at the RUSI Think-tank Justin Bronk, compared Europe’s two middle-weight fighter aircraft, the Typhoon and Rafale,  The relatively subtle differences between these two superbly capable aircraft have inspired a great deal of heated debate, often poisoned by pride and nationalism. His article provoked a huge response from readers around the world. We went back to Justin Bronk and asked him to revisit this analysis to include half a decade’s worth of development and weapons integration which has now placed these two aircraft at the top of their game.

 Justin Bronk is a Research Fellow of Military Sciences at the Royal United Services Institute and Editor of RUSI Defence Systems.

What is the biggest difference in the philosophy of the designs?

“With common DNA in terms of initial development and requirements setting work before France spilt away from what became the Eurofighter consortium to develop the Rafale, it is unsurprising that both aircraft have relatively similar design philosophies compared to their competitors globally. The biggest source of differences comes from the French requirement that the basic airframe design be suitable for CATOBAR carrier operations, which carries particular requirements in terms of relatively high-alpha, low speed handling especially with external stores still attached. The Rafale was also designed from the outset as a nuclear delivery system, which was not a major consideration for the Eurofighter nations.

In terms of the design philosophy effects on the final aircraft, the Rafale has a greater emphasis on load carrying and exceptional handling even at very low speeds whilst the Typhoon as a design is more focused on maximum performance at altitude, and agility at transonic and supersonic speeds. This is all relative, however, as both aircraft perform very similarly in most scenarios compared to other types.

Radar

At time of writing the following comparisons would be for the latest F3R Standard Rafale with the RBE2 AESA radar vs a Typhoon FGR.4 in UK service with the CAPTOR-M. I will add an estimate in brackets for the Kuwaiti/Qatari standard Typhoon with the ‘Radar 0’ version of the CAPTOR-E AESA which is flying and enters service this year in Kuwait. For reference the German/Spanish ‘Radar 1’ standard will add further capabilities and the UK’s ECRS2 version will be a different beast entirely with advanced ground mapping, GMTI and EW capabilities in addition to traditional AESA functions. However, those will not be in service for several years so are not included here.

Air-to-air engagements at long ranges
The RBE2 (has the advantage) against targets with a low radar cross section due to the greater performance of AESA types against these threats. CAPTOR-M (has the advantage) against larger targets such as bombers or MiG-31 ‘Foxhound’s due to a much larger aperture and generally higher altitude perch during air-to-air engagements. (Radar 0 will out-range both against airborne targets)

Air-to-air engagements at short ranges and why?
RBE2 due to much faster AESA scan, acquisition and classification of target capabilities, greater resistance to dropping contacts during manoeuvres, as well as excellent information display for pilots in F3R cockpit. (RBE2 likely to still beat Radar 0 upon IOC due to more mature system and HMI).

Air-to-ground
RBE2 as a multifunction AESA radar gives far more air-to-ground functionality than CAPTOR-M. (Radar 0 is optimised for air-to-air and is unlikely to challenge RBE2 in this arena).

Maritime attack
RBE2 again due to advantages of AESA array plus a more mature maritime attack mode with Exocet integrated. Typhoon has anti-ship munition options but no current operators use them.

Which aircraft has a superior infra-red search and track system and why? Typhoon with the PIRATE system is significantly ahead of the legacy Rafale IRST. The latter was deleted from the latest F3R standard aircraft pending an updated capability in the F4 standard jets, leaving a laser rangefinder/EO ball only. PIRATE is a genuinely exceptional IRST, although for years shortages of spare parts limited its use by various frontline squadrons.

Cockpit layout/man-machine interface
Both aircraft have similar cockpit layouts in most respects, with three large main multifunction colour displays capable of significant customisation to suit individual pilot preferences in the latest versions. Both are significantly cleaner in terms of switches and clutter than previous generations of aircraft and slightly cleaner than current generation F-15s and F-16s in USAF service. A pilot from either of those two fighters would find little out of place or unfamiliar in terms of cockpit layout, although the internal menus and system logic may be different from what they are used to. By dint of being complex multi role single seat (in most cases) fighters, the HOTAS controls are fairly intimidating to someone used to a US teen series (or my DCS A-10C/F-16 HOTAS), but once mastered are extremely comprehensive. Having ‘flown’ full fidelity Typhoon simulators in Italy and the UK, including the latest Project Centurion multi-role standard now used by the RAF, I was impressed by the intuitive ‘feel’ of the human-machine interface (HMI) across various multi role tasks. Unfortunately I haven’t had the opportunity to do the same with the French Air Force (hint hint mes amis!). According to all the Rafale pilots I have spoken to, the Rafale’s F3R standard HMI is superb from an operator’s point of view in multirole scenarios, especially in terms of displaying threat information.

The central display protruding out towards the pilot in the Rafale would be a matter of personal taste over the more traditional Typhoon display layout, with an easier view of the main radar/situational awareness display coming at the cost of slightly reduced cockpit working area in a cockpit already slightly more snug than Typhoon’s. The Typhoon has an advantage in terms of a mature helmet mounted display (HMD) system in the form of the Striker helmet, and an extremely advanced follow on (the Striker II) is well into testing with integral night vision, multi role visual/voice target designation capabilities and other advancements. Meanwhile the new Qatari standard Rafales are being delivered with the type’s first HMD, but the French Air Force still lacks this capability, and the system is still to be matured.

Top 10 multi-role fighters 2020 here

Maintenance/sortie rates/operating costs/cost

Both fighters are fairly expensive to operate compared to solutions such as Gripen or F-16 on a one-for-one basis, being large, complex, twin engined beasts. The exact cost per flight hour (a hugely contentious topic anyway) will depend greatly on which operator and which version you are looking at. For example, Spanish Typhoons cost a great deal more to fly than British ones since the RAF flies its fleet a lot more and has more streamlined maintenance support arrangements. However, even within the RAF, the older Tranche 1s are much more costly to fly and difficult to maintain than the new Tranche 3s. Rafale operating costs and availability likewise varies across standards and operators. In extremely broad brush terms, French Rafales sit somewhere in the middle in terms of operating costs compared to Typhoon, being slightly more expensive than the UK’s Tranche 2 and 3 Typhoons under the TyTan support arrangements but cheaper than Spain or Germany’s Typhoons. For export operators, things are much more dependent on fleet size and support contract structures than the differences between each aircraft type.

This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donate here. It only takes a moment. Recommended donation £15.

Both types are highly tolerant of bad weather conditions although Rafale-M has an edge in terms of landing conditions tolerances due to the carrier-suitability adaptions.

In terms of unit cost, Rafale is marketed as cheaper than the latest standards of Typhoon, although the Indian experience would suggest that in practice export customer requirements on industrial offsets and liability can dramatically alter costs compared to the up-front offer, so I’d be wary of comparing public cost claims from either manufacturer. The actual cost will depend on the govt-govt relationship and how many of the bells and whistles each customer wants to pay for. However, as a rule Rafale is probably slightly cheaper in real terms to acquire than Typhoon.

Our interviews with Typhoon pilot here , here and here.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here. Save the Hush-Kit blog. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. Our shop is here and our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here:

Low-observability

Both Rafale and Typhoon have low observable features but quite frankly neither is a low observable type. Completely slicked off with no external stores or targeting pods, a Rafale would likely have a lower frontal RCS compared to a Typhoon, but in practice neither would be combat effective in this configuration. With external pylons, tanks, weapons and pods, both have a sufficient RCS to be detected at long ranges by modern sensors such as the Irbis-E on the Su-35 and Chinese AESAs on J-10C, J-16 or J-20, as well as ground based air defence radars.

Aerodynamics and performance

It is said that the Rafale would have an advantage in a dogfight below 10K feet and a Typhoon above, would you agree with this?
In within-visual range combat, both Typhoon and Rafale would likely destroy each other in the merge in a 1v1 or 2v2. However, if talking about a ‘guns’ fight, then Rafale has better agility, instantaneous turn and sustained turn capabilities below around 15,000ft. Between 15,000 and around 30,000ft the relative merits will depend on speed range, as if the Typhoon might start with an advantage in a supersonic merge but Rafale would improve relatively as speeds drop during a long engagement. In practice it would depend on pilot experience and skill to fly their aircraft at best corner speed and manage their energy and position to best effect. At higher altitudes, Typhoon’s greater specific excess power and decoupled canards give it a slight advantage, which increases as altitude increases above 45,000ft.

What is Typhoon’s configuration designed to excel at, and the same for Rafale? Typhoon is designed to excel in acceleration, climb rate and supersonic performance and agility at high altitudes for maximum beyond visual range capability. Rafale is designed to excel at subsonic speeds and at lower altitudes. It is still a brutal performer compared to most other fighters, but cannot match Typhoon’s climb rate and brute thrust especially at higher altitudes. With heavy loads, however, Rafale performs significantly better than Typhoon across the almost the entire performance envelope, having been designed from the outset to incorporate heavy multirole loads. Typhoon’s flight control software starts to progressively restrict the jet with heavier (or particularly asymmetric) loads. The Aerodynamic Modification Kit (AMK) developed by Eurofighter would address these limitations and greatly improve the instantaneous turn rate and agility at all speeds with heavy loads, but so far no operator has bought it – suggesting they are broadly satisfied with the aircraft as is.

High alpha performance

Neither aircraft sparkles in the high-alpha regime compared to the Hornet family or anything with thrust vectoring, but the Rafale’s aerodynamically coupled canards give it slightly better high-alpha authority at slow speeds than Typhoon.

Abilities at different altitudes

The lower the altitude, the greater Rafale’s margin of advantage; the higher one goes, the better Typhoon performs relatively. Typhoon is happiest at 50,000ft and above.

Sustained/Instantaneous turn rates

Depends on altitude and speed. As above, the higher the speed and altitude of an engagement, the better Typhoon performs relative to Rafale and vice versa. In terms of instantaneous turn rate, Rafale has a slight advantage in air combat configuration and that increases with heavier multirole or strike loads.

Energy management/ ability to regenerate energy

Both fighters will pull 9G all day long in air combat configuration at most altitudes. At low altitudes Rafale’s energy retention is slightly better at best corner speed, whilst at higher altitudes Typhoon has better energy retention. In terms of energy regeneration, Typhoon has the edge by dint of a higher specific excess power.

Range and endurance

Both types have a similar ferry range with a ‘heavy’ three tank fit. However, Typhoon also uses a lot more fuel in afterburner so for mission profiles that involve a lot of AB use, Rafale will likely have the edge. In practice, both types depend to a large degree on tanker support for most operational missions.

Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here

Weapons

AMRAAM versus MICA

The AIM-120C7 and AIM-120D variants of AMRAAM used by RAF Typhoons significantly outrange MICA, although they do no boast an IR variant for passive BVR engagement capabilities. The flip side is that both AMRAAM variants have advanced off-board guidance capabilities to allow passive engagements in cooperation with another aircraft in active mode. US development efforts have emphasised these cooperative engagement capabilities (CEC) far more than French ones over the past two decades, and Typhoon benefits from that weapon heritage.

ASRAAM/IRIS-T versus MICA

MICA has slightly superior range to ASRAAM and significantly superior range to IRIS-T. All are highly agile and lethal missiles in a WVR engagement, with IRIS-T boasting the greatest knife fight agility, ASRAAM the best performance off the rail, and MICA the best reach. The lack of a helmet mounted sight for Rafale until the Qatari standard has meant that in practice Typhoon users may be able to get more out of IRIS-T or ASRAAM in a dynamic WVR engagement.

BK27 versus GIAT cannon

Both are devastating revolver cannons with selectable rates of fire. The GIAT has the advantage in maximum possible firing rate (of 2500rpm vs 1700rpm) although in practice both would likely fire at comparable rates for both air-to-air or air-to-ground use to make best use of very limited ammunition (125 rounds for Rafale, 150 for Typhoon). As revolver cannons, both reach their maximum fire rate almost immediately. The BK27 has slightly better muzzle velocity and ballistic properties whilst the GIAT has slightly better destructive effect due to its larger shell. In practice, there is little to choose between them, I pity the enemy shot at by either.

Air-to-ground munitions

Typhoon (Tranche 2 and 3)’s main strike armament of Paveway IV, Brimstone and Storm Shadow give it world-leading high-precision, low-collateral damage tools for most ground targets. It can also carry other munitions including the US Paveway II and III series of laser-guided bombs, and has been cleared for the AGM-88 HARM and British ALARM anti-radiation missiles although these are not in operational service. The ongoing flight trials of the SPEAR 3 multirole light standoff munition (which includes an EW variant for stand-in jamming) on UK Typhoons give the type access to another highly potent option, although at present the UK is only paying to actually use SPEAR 3 on F-35B. France’s AASM ‘Hammer’ series of glide and boosted bomb guidance kits gives Rafale a comparable capability to Paveway IV with a greater amount of warhead and range flexibility. The drawback is extremely high munitions cost. At the lower end, the Rafale can also carry and deliver the US made Paveway II and III series and like Typhoon is cleared to carry but does not currently use a range of other US munitions.

Recce equipment

Typhoon has to make do with a less than fully optimised TAC-R pod as the RAPTOR pod fitted to Tornado GR.4 was not integrated when the latter was retired – in part because of centreline store size limitations on Typhoon due to the front landing gear leg placement. Rafale uses the Damocles targeting pod for light recce duties whilst RAF Typhoons use the Lightning III which also has limited FOV recon capabilities. However, Rafale can also use the RECO-NG wide area/standoff TAC-R pod to provide a modern, fully digital equivalent to RAPTOR. This is a significant advantage over Typhoon in the TAC-R role. Typhoon export users employ the Damocles pod (Saudi Arabia) and the Sniper pod (Kuwait). The Damocles pod has an advantage over Sniper and Lightning III in that it features an integral datalink capability to transfer reconnaissance and target data directly to other stations such as those found on French Air Force tankers. In practice, however, Typhoon users with Sniper or Lightning III can off-board data using the jet’s own datalinks.

(Also Damocles is replaced by TALIOS as part of F3R.)

Brimstone versus Hammer

Brimstone is more accurate with a much smaller ultra-low collateral warhead. AASM is dependent on either IR or laser-guidance to hit moving targets, rendering it more sensitive to adverse conditions than Brimstone’s millimetric wave radar seeker/laser dual mode guidance option. Brimstone’s smaller size also allows more weapons to be carried per aircraft, with three per hardpoint on adaptors. However, Brimstone is not designed to produce area effects or destroy structures, so for such targets the AASM family provides far more capability, especially with the larger ‘bomb’ body variants. For such targets, Typhoon users would employ Paveway II/III/IV series weapons.

Top WVR fighter aircraft 2019 here

Cruise missile capability

Rafale’s SCALP and Typhoon’s Storm Shadow are essentially the same (extremely capable but very expensive) missile from MBDA. Germany has cleared its Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile but since German politicians do not believe that Air Forces should be used to kill people, its capabilities remain untested in combat. The French Rafales can also carry the ASMP-A nuclear standoff missile which is a unique capability.

Defence suppression/anti shipping

Both Typhoon and Rafale lack a commonly carried anti-radiation missile, although modern AAM such as AMRAAM and Meteor can be assumed to have a certain degree of ARM capability in extremis. Rafale has a superior ECM (electronic attack) capability in the shape of the SPECTRA suite allowing it more options to degrade the performance of hostile SAM radars if it needs to penetrate defended airspace. Typhoon users will have to wait for the UK-developed ECRS2 radar and DAS upgrade for a competitive or even (potentially) superior option. Both Typhoon and Rafale can launch capable standoff cruise missiles in the shape of the Storm Shadow/SCALP and Taurus KEPD 350. However, to have a decent probability of kill against modern long range air defence radars, these missiles require accurate real time target location data. This is because modern SAM systems such as the S-400 and HQ-9 are highly mobile and have such long range that a subsonic cruise missile launched from a safe distance would take tens of minutes to arrive. As such, both Typhoon and Rafale could make a very valuable contribution to a SEAD/DEAD operation in support of more stealthy penetrating ISTAR/strike assets such as F-35 or advanced UAVs, but if hypothetically forced to fight alone neither is particularly well suited at present – Rafale having a slight edge due to the SPECTRA suite.

Meteor

I’m not 100% sure if Rafale can now use the full two-way datalink functionality on Meteor. I think that is now enabled. Typhoon’s habit of fighting at very high speeds and altitude for BVR engagements will result in a longer effective range on Meteor shots, but in practice there are almost no scenarios short of a full scale war with Russia where the rules of engagement would allow shots at such a range where that difference would tell. Both can use third party target data to launch Meteor without active radar scanning by the launch aircraft, and both can hand off guidance in flight to other friendly assets. The UK’s Typhoons in particular are more closely integrated with the USAF air dominance community than (any) other fighter arm so have more practice in getting the most out of cooperative engagements with F-22s in realistic training scenarios.

How frequently is Meteor actually carried in 2020?
Tranche 2 and 3 Typhoons regularly carry Meteor on live operational sorties with European users, although the Tranche 1s do not use the missile which is why the RAF purchased the latest AIM-120D for its remaining Tranche 1s. For Rafale, Meteor is regularly carried by the F3R standard aircraft on live operational sorties by both the Armee de l’Air and Aeronavale.

How many Meteors are carried on a single-aircraft in everyday service?
RAF Typhoons and French Air Force Rafales typically carry two Meteors when flying with the missile.

SAVE THIS SITE!

If you wish to see more articles like this in the future please donate here. We are extremely grateful to all those who choose to donate. Hushkit.net depends on donations to carry on. The more you donate, the more you will get.

How many Meteor could be carried in a wartime emergency?

The wartime load-out for Typhoon would by four Meteor in semi-recessed fuselage mounts plus four ASRAAM/IRIS-T although in practice a mix of Meteor and AMRAAM might be chosen for additional tactical flexibility and stockpile management. As far as I’m aware the Rafale has so far only been cleared for Meteor carriage on the two side-fuselage hardpoints although I could be wrong on that. If it was a priority to up the Meteor carriage on Rafale to four, I expect that could be done at the cost of MICA numbers on the centre underwing station.

Sensor fusion

Both Rafale F3R and P3E standard (Centurion upgraded) Typhoons present pilots with an intuitive combined situational awareness display which integrates data from multiple sensors. In that sense, both feature sensor fusion and represent a significant upgrade compared to legacy aircraft and previous Rafale and Typhoon standards. However, neither truly does the F-35’s signature trick of feeding the raw sensor inputs into a complex analytical process which cross references data from and cross cues not only each sensor on the jet but also those across a formation of F-35s, before presenting a processed single SA picture to the pilot. There’s a reason (beyond the undoubted inefficiencies and concurrency) why the US have had to put nearly half a trillion dollars into the F-35 programme to date, mostly aimed at getting the nightmarishly ambitious and complex software architecture to work. They’re trying to do something much more ambitious; although in many scenarios the output is functionally similar.

Defensive aids
SPECTRA has a better reputation primarily because of Libya in 2011 (a result of French political ambition and risk tolerance, alongside technical capability). However, it is a highly capable defensive aids suite, with greater strength on the ECM area of the ESM/ECM/ECCM EW triad compared to Typhoon’s DAS which is notable in the quality of its ESM (passive detection, ID and tracking of threats). The Indian standard Rafales come with a Towed Radar Decoy (TRD) but the French aircraft currently lack this feature. Typhoon comes with one or two TRDs mounted in a wingtip pod as standard, with specific version dependent on operator choices. The UK’s new Britecloud active radar ‘chaff’ countermeasures are another area where Typhoon is potentially somewhat in the lead on DAS features.

The leaked Swiss evaluation rated Rafale superior in almost every category- would this still be the case?
The Swiss competition was horrendously mismanaged by the Eurofighter consortium with a buggy Tranche 1 jet sent to compete with the best that Saab and Dassault could bring to the table. However, in terms of radar, the Rafale would still come out ahead due to its mature RBE2. In terms of load carrying capacity, ECM, subsonic agility, low and medium altitude WVR performance and cost Rafale F3R would also likely still come out ahead of a Tranche 2 or 3 P3E standard Typhoon. However, an RAF standard Tranche 3 Typhoon would likely come out ahead on BVR performance, interceptor missions (due to extreme rate of climb and performance), ESM, terminal countermeasures and low-collateral strike capabilities. Frankly, Switzerland should be flying Gripen C/D or possibly E/F given their national budget, neutrality and mission requirements and I’d wager anyone who looks at it from an operational requirements point of view would come to a similar conclusion. Shame about the whole referendum thing for the Swiss Air Force.

How has Typhoon improved since your 2015 assessment?
The multirole capabilities of the jet have matured drastically since 2015, especially as a result of the RAF’s Project Centurion programme which integrated Brimstone, full Paveway IV functionality and Storm Shadow, in addition to full Striker HMD exploitation and a number of other multirole enabling capabilities. The integration of full Meteor capability and upgrades to the UK’s ESM capabilities within the DAS are also a big boost. The fact that Kuwaiti Typhoons are already flying with the export AESA is a welcome but long overdue improvement but Typhoon really continues to lag in terms of exploitation of its huge potential (given the massive nose aperture and power available) in the AESA department.

Top 10 BVR fighters of 2019

The German/Spanish Radar 1 order will, however, mean that there are a large number of AESA equipped Typhoons in service by the mid-2020s with all the Quadriga and Tornado replacement Typhoons to feature the capability. The UK’s much more ambitious (and now funded) ECRS2 promises a massive leap in AESA capability with areas of advantage even over the latest US AESAs, but is so far only likely to be integrated onto the 40 Tranche 3s, with the fate of the 67 Tranche 2s less certain in that regard.

Rafale improved since your 2015 assessment?

The integration of the Meteor missile for the F3R standard Rafales has plugged a major weakness of the type in my 2015 assessments – the lack of a serious BVR stick. The RBE2 radar has continued to mature and is now a standout feature of the jet, whilst the French government has committed to a major upgrade of the jet’s internal systems and sensors in the upcoming F4 standard programme. This means that the Rafale will continue to improve, especially in the EW and sensor fusion department throughout the 2020s.

Interview with a Rafale pilot here

What is the best Typhoon variant today and why?

The RAF’s Tranche 3 jets. With the Centurion upgrades, Meteor integration and an extremely experienced user community both in terms of strike/multirole missions and air superiority, the RAF’s Tranche 3 Typhoons would edge out the Kuwaiti and Qatari aircraft in terms of operational capability, even though the latter feature the export version of the CAPTOR-E radar series.

What is the best Rafale variant today and why?
That’s tricky to say. The Indian standard does feature some impressive additions including additional podded electronic warfare capabilities and TRD, whilst the Qatari standard features the new HMD. Both include the RBE2 although it is likely to be an export standard that is slightly de-tuned compared to French aircraft. The French Air Force’s latest F3R aircraft with the RBE2 and Meteor are, on balance, likely to be the most capable Rafales around for much the same reasons as the RAF’s Tranche 3 Typhoons are. Highly experienced crews, full DAS and radar capabilities without export restrictions (and a nuclear missile capability).

Which is doing better on the export market and why?

Rafale has had some impressive success on the export market since 2015, with the combination of RBE2 radar, combat record in Libya and aggressive French state support for marketing efforts contributing to success in Egypt, Qatar and Greece (as well as India). Typhoon has had successes in Qatar and Kuwait, and a signature of intent from Saudi Arabia for another 48 aircraft soon. However, the biggest win in recent years is for Typhoon from Germany for both the Quadriga-standard replacement order for the Tranche 1s and also 90 aircraft to replace Germany’s Tornado fleet in the conventional strike role. This doesn’t really count as an export success though. Finland will be an interesting result to watch, but I’m not sure either aircraft could be considered a favourite.

TOPGUN instructor (and former F-14/F/A-18 crew) assesses Tomcat versus Meteor-armed Typhoon fight & list top 5 BVR fighters 2020 here

What should I have asked you?

Which aircraft would fare better against the Flanker family and other aircraft likely to be flown by near-peer competitors such as the Chinese J-10 family? After all, Typhoon and Rafale were not built to fight each other, and will not do so. Their job is to deter and if necessary provide overmatch against the latest hostile fighter types. In this role, the Typhoon is probably the standout with its superior BVR capabilities in a large scale, open ROE engagement, but up close in a flashpoint around a QRA interception Rafale might have the edge. In a complex battlespace with dense ground based as well as aerial threats, both Typhoon and Rafale are formidable assets but would rely on support from dedicated penetrating and stand-off assets to minimise risk and truly perform at their best.

Typhoon versus Su-35 here.

“If you have any interest in aviation, you’ll be surprised, entertained and fascinated by Hush-Kit – the world’s best aviation blog”. Rowland White, author of the best-selling ‘Vulcan 607’

I’ve selected the richest juiciest cuts of Hush-Kit, added a huge slab of new unpublished material, and with Unbound, I want to create a beautiful coffee-table book. Pre-order your copy now right here  

TO AVOID DISAPPOINTMENT PRE-ORDER YOUR COPY NOW

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:

“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”.

The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.

FEATURING

• Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
• Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
• Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
• A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
• Bizarre moments in aviation history.
• Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.

The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.

Rewards levels include these packs of specially produced trump cards.

Pre-order your copy now right here  

When I heard a new sixth generation fighter technology demonstrator flew I didn’t feel excitement. A broken, and possibly dying, empire invests in another half century or more of warfare. Whoopee! Let’s crack open the champagne and drink to an eternal 20th century!

War and high technology for the sake of it should not belong to the future, the world has more serious matters to attend to. The United States Air Force is amazing as air forces go. If they twiddled their fingers and kept the existing hardware for another twenty years they’d still have the numbers and quality to do almost anything. The Russian Su-57 is a hopeless prestige exercise, the J-20 irrelevant – and anyway the US hasn’t faced a serious peer air force since the Luftwaffe almost 80 years ago (and no: Korea, Vietnam and Iraq do not count). Could ignoring the arms technology race leave America vulnerable to another ‘Pearl Harbor’? Possibly, but probably not. There are more likely dangers and there are even (almost) inevitable ones.

In fact the US military is so brilliant that a pressing concern for more pessimistic planners in the rest of the world might be exactly how the US could be stopped in the event of a calamity. They may wonder how such a potentially hazardous overmatch was allowed to happen. How we’ve got to a situation where the US is the only nation that has truly modern attack aircraft in mass production. How the US has a defence budget 14 times higher than India despite having a population only a third the size. If the sole point of the USAF was to defend US lives in the modern world, it clearly hasn’t been money well spent; the mourned dead were not put in their graves by ‘Blackjacks’ and ‘Backfires’. But defending US civilians isn’t the sole role of USAF. Many key objectives are rather more bizarre. Core missions for the service include ‘Global Strike … Any target, any time’ and ‘the Freedom to Attack’. When considering whether that is a desirable idea, the philosopher Immanuel Kant may have asked: ‘Would that be a good thing for every nation to have?’ , before dodging punches from B-1B pilots who don’t wish to fly Dreamliners.

The US of the future will be optionally manned.

The future is always unpredictable but it’s hard not to think that aerial firefighting aircraft will be the most valuable kind of fighter aircraft in 2040. It is an extreme optimist who prepares for a high-tech war in 2100.

The volume and brutality of the Iran-Iraqi air war of the 1980s was astonishing. On the 40th anniversary of the Iran-Iraq War, we spoke to retired Brig. General Alireza Namaki who commanded an F-4 Fighter Wing, and survived numerous combat missions against Iraqi targets. Here he shares his insights on the potency of the Phantom, the raw drama of ground attack sorties, frustration with bad leadership and the appalling horror of a one-man mission of revenge that will forever haunt him.

What were your first impressions of the Phantom II ? “Amazement. It was some time in 1968 when I flew for the first time in the backseat of a brand new F-4D. My flight instructor was Col. Bahram Hoshyar, who later became an influential air war planner in the early 1980s. He taught me a great deal about flying and fighting in the F-4.
As a new second lieutenant fresh from the Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT), I was given many opportunities to go through ‘cockpit checks’ to become familiar with F-4’s switchology, and had spent many hours in the simulator to prepare for the actual flight. My fast jet flying experience up to that point had primarily been on T-33 Shooting Star. And the transition from T-33 to F-4 was like going from night to day. The Lockheed T-33 had steam gauges, and it was just clunky, small and underpowered. On the other hand, the F-4 Phantom had radar and ECM displays; its gauges were more advanced. Up to that point, I had never seen an aeroplane with radar. And F-4 had both the air-to-ground and air-to-air radar function displays. The Imperial Iranian Air Force in late 1960s possessed roughly 16 brand new F-4D jets, and besides the United Kingdom and the United States, no other country owned any F-4s. Anyways, it was a grand aircraft, and I have never seen a better, sexier fighter jet since then. The F-4 will always be my first love. On first sighting, I was filled with both joy and apprehension. I was also hoping to get a slot to fly the Phantom from the front seat. The training syllabus was exciting especially when we got to employ air-to-ground weapons.”

Three words to describe the F-4 Phantom?
“Allow me to say four words. On top of being the farthest, highest and fastest fighter plane of its time, it was also a reliably ‘pinpoint’ striker.It could carry more than 10,000 lb of ordnance. It could be armed with radar-guided and heat-seeking missiles. Its later version the E model was also armed with an internal gun. It could fly up to 50,000 feet at sustained speeds unrivalled by its contemporaries. It could strike any target anywhere.”

Its best traits?
“In its own time, it was the best. Its bombing computer, armaments, fuel capacity and its capability to be air-refuelled were unique for its time. It was technologically ahead of its rivals like the MiG-21 and MiG-23. And among its western colleagues, it was top notch, certainly better than the A-4 Skyhawk, or early versions of the Panavia Tornado. But since you asked, its biggest and most useful trait was the aircraft’s forgiveness. By that I mean the aircraft could tolerate pilot’s mishandling and mistreatment of the airframe better than most jets. It was sturdy and could take a beating. Many pilots survived their ejection, bad landings and combat solely due to the F-4 being a superb machine. It is now clear that the F-4 was the ultimate 1970s multi-role war machine. And it could also be employed in strategic role for smaller nations like Iran. Case in point is the Iranian air force’s strategic attack on Osirak’s reactor in late September 1980 (on the 7th day of the war a two-ship strike mission led by Major H. Ghahestani), which forced French engineers and support personnel to leave Iraq the following day. I am prepared to argue that Israel’s attack on Osirak later on was more symbolic since we had inflicted damage to the facilities. Or another strategic strike was that of our several missions against ‘Salman-Pak’ nuclear research facilities south of Baghdad through out the first year of the war.”

Its worst traits?
“To speak of Phantom’s worst traits, its weight (empty) comes to mind. I am assuming that the designers had to have to grapple with this from the get -go. And we’ve got to be fair, the Phantom has to be compared with its contemporaries in appraising its worst or best traits. For its time, it was nearly flawless and was built to bridge a technological and tactical gap.”

What are your thoughts on sensors and avionics?

“Again, this must be viewed in the context of time. At the time of delivery to our air force, the F-4D/E was quite advanced. They had been equipped with radar altimeter, a gunsight, radios, INS (inertial navigation system), a complex weapon release computer system (WRCS), RWR sensors and ECM capabilities. And I must say, Iran’s RF-4E recce jets at the time of their delivery in mid 1970s were the most advanced reconnaissance fighter aircraft in the market.”

Cockpit switchology?
“From the typical human-machine interface, it was brilliant. I did not have to take my eyes off the flight path to look for switches. Although this ability was built after many hours of practicing and flying the aircraft. I have around 4000 hours on the F4D/E variants and never did I encounter any problems with the placement of switches or systems.”

Tell us something that our readers may not know about Iran’s F-4 Phantoms

“The Phantom is now an ageing airframe, and it is nearing its retirement everywhere. The late Shah’s air force acquired F-4D/E in large numbers to satisfy a strategic need at the time. Our neighbour to the north, the Soviet Union, was a menace. Our neighbour to the west, Iraq, was a threat. The Phantom was purchased to deal with the threats of its time. No presidential palace, no oil facility, no air base was safe from our reach. It could fulfil a strategic role for our air force as well as a tactical role.

One interesting fact to your reader could be the late Shah’s desire to buy General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark instead of the F-4D/E. It is why I use the word strategic for the role F-4 was to play for us.”

Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here

How satisfied were you with F-4’s weapons and performance?
You are asking me how satisfied I was? I am an F-4 pilot. I was and am delighted by F-4’s performance including its armaments. In 1980s, a few F-4E Phantom fighters each armed with half a dozen AGM-65 Maverick missiles could destroy any ship at will. This was proven in late November 1980 during ‘Operation Morvarid’ in which we essentially removed Iraq’s naval capacity from being an effective factor in waging war in northern Persian Gulf.”

Did you ever encounter an enemy aircraft in combat?
“Not close and personal in combat. Although I fired a radar guided AIM-7E Sparrow missile at an intruder in a BVR (Beyond the Visual Range) situation, but I am not certain what came of it.”

What do you think was the toughest opponent for an F-4?
“Best to direct this question to Iranian F-14 pilots, as their primary task was to tackle the Iraqi aircraft in dogfight. Iran’s fleet of F-4s was primarily tasked with tactical and strategic bombing missions albeit in few instances, Iranian air force Phantoms performed air-to-air missions with varying degree of success. My personal opinion is that the Iraqi Mirage F1 in lower speeds could outperform, and out-turn the F-4 and overcome it. But in higher speeds and during ‘snapshot attacks’ F-4 was acceptably better.”

How was life during the war in and out of squadrons? What lows and highs did you personally experience?
“The answer to this question can be as long and extensive as the eight years of the war itself. On the first day of the war, I had to kiss my family and children goodbye. As we lived in a war zone at Bushehr air base, they had to be evacuated to a safer city beyond the reach of Iraqi fighter-bombers. I managed to go home once after thirty straight days. The house was extensively damaged, and its windows were completely shattered due to Iraqi bombs going off nearby. I felt I was taking revenge for my own destroyed house as I led a four-ship formation to bomb Az-Zubayr oil field west of Basrah.

As a warfighter, I was truly hurt whenever the Iraqis would attack our population centres and we were absolutely forbidden by our own government to retaliate in kind.

In one such attack, an Iraqi jet struck a girl’s middle school near the city of Abadan resulting in the death of more than 23 students and a young teacher. This event caused me a lot of emotional pain. I think I had found my own reason/excuse for a personal vendetta. This terrible incident was seared in my mind until the day I was tasked to lead a 3-ship sortie call sign ‘Houman’ to attack the town of Khor al-Zubair’s steel and iron plant 40 km south of Basrah. Each aircraft was armed with six BL-755 bombs.
These are cluster bombs designed to destroy tanks and armoured troop carriers. That day I got to take my revenge and wage my own personal war. I had decided to save one of these bombs to drop on Basrah on our way back to Bushehr air base. My reasoning was to give the Iraqis a taste of their own medicine. Choosing a north to south heading, I released the remaining bomb on what appeared to be an empty street, dove to 20 feet in afterburner while dodging a hail of AAA arcing over my canopy. That very night, Radio Baghdad reported that upwards of 40 Iraqi citizens have been killed and wounded in a bombing raid. Our wing commander summoned me and questioned me. The air force headquarters was desperate to find the perpetrator. But I denied it and they eventually let go of it. I am now a retired warrior and I absolutely regret this incident. It is apparent that what I had done was, and is, against the accepted norms of humanity and was against the international law. Mankind created war, just as it invented lying and dishonesty. And I abhor what I did. I am not proud of it.

Such harrowing combat tales are aplenty. The regular Iranian armed forces did not target Iraqi civilians. It is important to add that in the later stages of the war in what came to be known as ‘war of the cities’ missile attacks against Baghdad our regular forces did not conduct such attacks.”

“Honestly, my flying career is now defined by the gruelling years of the war. One event stands out. By 1987, I was a fighter Wing Commander at Bushehr air base (In Iranian AF, a wing commander is also the base commander) in the latter stages of the war. Our wing was instructed to strike three oil tankers carrying Iraqi oil or heading to Iraqi oil terminals per week by our higher headquarters. This is during the early stages of the infamous Tanker War. It was the weekend. Our quota of three had not been achieved. We had managed to hit two ships that week. Our F-4 jets had found a third vessel to attack, however Saudi Arabian F-15 fighters had arrived and prevented our side from performing a successful strike. This third vessel’s captain had now decided to deviate and head for Saudi’s Ras Tanura port. Hitting a vessel in a neutral country’s waters was akin to declaring war on that neutral state, and as such it was not advised. Time was running out, and this vessel had to be hit before it took refuge in Saudi Arabian territorial waters. I decided to fly this special mission myself, as I did not want to endanger the lives of my younger pilots. Flying as low as I could to close the distance, I popped up around 8 miles out and fired two AGM-65 Maverick missiles at it, dove back down and flew straight to Bushehr AB as low as it was feasible. This definitely put an end to the non-stop messages my office was receiving from Tehran on the need to strike three ships a week.”

THIS SITE NEEDS A SMALL DONATION FROM YOU TO CONTINUE. IF YOU’VE ENJOYED AN ARTICLE PLEASE DONATE HERE. IT ONLY TAKES A MOMENT. RECOMMENDED DONATION £15.

How valuable was the Phantom for Iran both in terms of how it was perceived and its combat capability?
“In early to mid 1970s, Iraq’s leadership grew increasingly hostile towards Iran. Therefore our war planners in the air force began concentrating on countering this probable threat. So plans were made to attack all Iraqi airfields on the first day of hostilities to deny Iraqi AF a chance to use them for further aggression. Our pre-1979 contingency plans had us bomb each Iraqi airfield with roughly 50 aircraft. This required more or less 300 strike aircraft to fly in a single day to secure air supremacy for the ground forces to advance inside Iraqi territory.

It is widely accepted that our air force performed a deterrent role before its personnel were decimated by the Islamic revolution and the ensuing purges. Psychologically speaking, Iran’s neighbours were informed of our capabilities and were aware that any air or land strike against Iran had to be foolish since it would be responded to with overwhelming force. Combat-wise, this aircraft was unique in what it brought to the table. As I said earlier, this aircraft flew the furthest and highest among its contemporaries. I remember vividly that back in 1969 during a bilateral training exercise with the Pakistani air force (I had just finished my initial F-4 combat training) we intercepted a Pakistani Canberra bomber flying at 45,000 feet. Up to that point we had no fighter aircraft that could do these types of missions. The aircraft made an invaluable combat contribution as a whole.”

Anything you’d like to add?
“All that must be said about the Phantom has been said and spoken of as it has been around for generations. Iran possessed roughly 230 F-4 Phantoms in D, E and RF variants. A handful of Cs model of its reconnaissance version were loaned to Iran by the Americans in early 1970s for recce flights of the Soviet Union. And many replacements were sent to Iran before 1979 for the airframes we had lost due to mishaps. No new F-4s joined our fleet after the revolution due to US embargoes, and the plans to purchase F-4G Wild Weasels were shelved.

Iranian AF lost nearly 50 percent of its F-4 Phantom II aircraft during the war and this is most hurtful to me. Some of these losses were unnecessary and could have been avoided had our side employed people with a degree of professional knowledge instead of employing religious zealots who had weaselled their way to the top who did not know anything tactics or war fighting.”

What is your most memorable flight?
“One stands out in my mind as a proud moment of my younger days. It took place several years before the Islamic revolution of 1979 during training exercises participated by the United States, Pakistan and Iran. Our task was to fly an armed reconnaissance mission from Bushehr in north of Persian Gulf all the way to somewhere in the Indian Ocean to track an unknown vessel. This flight lasted about more than a dozen hours with multiple mid-air refuelling with the US and Iranian tankers. My front-seat pilot was the then Maj. Ravadgar who later became a prisoner of war. My point is that this sole mission proved the value of F-4 to me as a young pilot, it was and still is the longest I’d ever strapped to an ejection seat while flying.

Thoughts on replacement for Iranian F-4s? What’d you buy if you were in charge?
“Each aircraft brings its own unique set of capabilities. And it really depends on what directs our future procurement. Is it a strategic buy, or a tactical one? What role are we fulfilling? The US-built F-35A Lightning II, or the Russian built Su-34 are among the best choices to replace the ageing F-4, and the F-15E is certainly a useful asset in terms of its capabilities.”

_{THIS SITE NEEDS A SMALL DONATION FROM YOU TO CONTINUE. IF YOU’VE ENJOYED AN ARTICLE PLEASE DONATE HERE. IT ONLY TAKES A MOMENT. RECOMMENDED DONATION £15.}

Anything else you’d like to share with our readers?
“Maybe one last thing. In a Max Range, Max Performance strike mission we flew a handful of F-4s early in the war to attack a commercial transit point also known as Ar’ar border crossing on the Iraqi-Saudi border. We knew this border crossing to be the place from which Iraq was importing aviation fuel, lubricants and diesel. The other port of entry ‘Safwan’ (at Iraq-Kuwait border) was closed as a result of weeks of air bombardment. This was the maximum range of our aircraft and we could not air-refuel as this was deep inside Iraqi territory. Our calculations were by the book and we found out we would have less than 2500 lbs of fuel (bingo fuel) prior to
touchdown at Bushehr. We managed to bomb the trucks and vehicles creating massive fireballs all around. However I decided to turn around and fire my plane’s nose-mounted gun at other intact vehicles. But this cost me valuable amount of gas, which caused me a double engine flameout as soon as I touched down on runway. Had this happened moments earlier, I may have had to eject over the water. This is an unforgettable mission for me.”

Brig. General (rtd) Alireza Namaki is a former squadron, and wing commander at Bushehr TFB . He is an independent historian/author with several published books in the Persian language on the subject of the Iran-Iraq war in the air in his name.

Interview by Kash Ryan

Kash Ryan a native of Iran, hails from a military family. Both his father and grandfather were professional service members. His father served in the Iranian Air Force retiring as a Lt colonel. Kash served mandatory service in the Iranian Air Force in the late 1990s.

Growing up on an air base planted the seeds of curiosity about aviation and aircraft in him. He is a qualified private pilot currently splitting his time between Canada and the United States. As a military history enthusiast he was compelled to bring several fascinating combat memoirs of the Iranian Air Force pilots to a wider audience in the English speaking world for the first time.

“If you have any interest in aviation, you’ll be surprised, entertained and fascinated by Hush-Kit – the world’s best aviation blog”. Rowland White, author of the best-selling ‘Vulcan 607’

I’ve selected the richest juiciest cuts of Hush-Kit, added a huge slab of new unpublished material, and with Unbound, I want to create a beautiful coffee-table book. Pre-order your copy now right here  

TO AVOID DISAPPOINTMENT PRE-ORDER YOUR COPY NOW

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:

“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”.

The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.

FEATURING

• Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
• Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
• Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
• A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
• Bizarre moments in aviation history.
• Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.

The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.

Rewards levels include these packs of specially produced trump cards.

Pre-order your copy now right here  

 

Have you heard of the Magnus effect? Of course you have. Anyway, just in case you’ve forgotten, the Magnus effect is a phenomenon that affects spinning circular or spherical objects in motion. The spin causes the object to behave in a way that it would not if spin were not present, the most commonplace examples of this effect occur in sport, a spinning football arcs or swerves through the air due to the Magnus effect. Vertically mounted spinning cylinders have been used to power ships (they are known as Flettner rotors). Turn the cylinder 90 degrees and the same effect means that top spin causes a downward arc but back spin effectively generates lift.

In 1910 Butler Ames, a serving member of the US Congress, built a machine he called the Aerocycle that featured two rotating drums powered by a V-8 engine. This was sufficiently promising to have been mounted on to a platform on the USS Bagley but it is unclear if it worked in any meaningful fashion.

Back in 1910 aviation was still very new and Ames could always use the valid excuse that no one knew what an aeroplane was supposed to look like back then.

However by 1930 literally thousands of aircraft were flying about supported by conventional wings which, you would think, might make the development of a weird new aircraft supported by spinning cylinders seem potentially redundant. Nonetheless three inventors, their identities sadly lost to posterity, decided that that was exactly what the aviation world needed and built the Plymouth A-A-2004. It is alleged to have made more than one successful flight but evidence is scanty though there is no particular reason to discard the claim out of hand. Nonetheless the Plymouth A-A-2004 was a dead end. The obvious and compelling reason why the world is yet to fully embrace the Magnus effect aircraft is that in the event those cylinders stop spinning due to engine failure (a relatively common occurrence in 1930), they stop producing any Magnus effect lift at all and the aircraft would simply plummet to the ground due to the Gravity effect.

Fancy a longer read on interesting moments in aeronautical design? Try this

THIS SITE NEEDS A SMALL DONATION FROM YOU TO CONTINUE. IF YOU’VE ENJOYED AN ARTICLE PLEASE DONATE HERE. IT ONLY TAKES A MOMENT. RECOMMENDED DONATION £15.

 

Rusting away in the desert of history, ten charismatic American fighter aircraft failed to make the grade. Since the early 1940s, the United States has created some of the most capable fighter aircraft in the world. But the road to designing, building and then selling something as technologically demanding as a fighter is not easy, and many – often brilliant – planes fell by the wayside. Here are 10, though we could happily share another fifty, of the most charismatic fighter aircraft never to make it to widespread service. Some featured innovative thinking that was just a little too ahead of its time, some were clearly the wrong idea, and some were just plain unlucky; regardless, they are fascinating aeroplanes that tell a great deal about engineering history. 

10. Grumman (G-34) XF5F-1 Skyrocket (1940) ‘The Un-reluctant Rocket’

Thirty years before the F-14 Tomcat, Grumman built another extremely advanced twin-engine carrier fighter, the superb G-34. Twin-engined carrier fighters were not a thing in 1940, but despite this the first example of this breed proved a winner. Trials in 1941 pitted the type against all the most advanced Allied fighters, including the XF4U Corsair; according to the man in charge of the test, “. I remember testing the XF5F against the XF4U on climb to the 10,000 foot level. I pulled away from the Corsair so fast I thought he was having engine trouble. The F5F was a carrier pilot’s dream, as opposite rotating propellers eliminated all torque and you had no large engine up front to look around to see the LSO (landing signal officer) … The analysis of all the data definitely favored the F5F, and the Spitfire came in a distant second. … ADM Towers told me that securing spare parts … and other particulars which compounded the difficulty of building the twin-engine fighter, had ruled out the Skyrocket and that the Bureau had settled on the Wildcat for mass production.” The effort was not a waste of time however, as the design evolved into the Tigercat, one of the finest piston-engined fighters ever flown.

9. McDonnell XP-67 ‘Moonbat‘ (1944)

The radical aerodynamics of the Moonbat gave this US fighter prototype the look of a flying stingray. The design emphasised low drag and harvesting a high amount of fuselage lift through a blended wing/body design. The fuselage, like the wing, had an aerofoil cross-section. This idea had been seen earlier on the Westland Dreadnought based on the blended fuselage-wing ideas of Russian inventor N. Woyevodsky, a Russian emigre scientist who lived in England.

The first two manifestations of this design failed to arouse the USAAF, but promises of a 472mph top speed tantalised the authorities and funding was granted. McDonnell considered serious armament options, including a 75-mm gun.

The resultant aircraft flew in 1944 and proved the unknown adage ‘if it looks like a stingray it will fly like one’. It was underpowered, with poor handling, a long take-off run, terrible fuel consumption and stall characteristics that even a 1940s test pilot didn’t have the bottle to explore. A prototype crashed, and the project was deemed too dangerous to continue.

However, the blended wing body concept has not died. It was later used with great success, among other things, in the SR-71 Blackbird. It is also being studied in its purest form for several future airline concepts.

8. Northrop F-18L ‘Scornet’

The F/A-18 Hornet is no slouch in a dogfight, and the land-based F-18L was even better. Freed from the extra weight of carrier compatibility, it was almost 30% lighter than the F/A-18A. This gave it a superior range and manoeuvrability and enhanced practically all other aspects of its already sparkling performance. It also boasted a Sparrow missile capability, something the F-16s of the time lacked. In fact, medium-range weapons were not carried by any other lightweight fighters in the 1970s.

The F-18L was offered to Canada for the New Fighter Aircraft Project of the late 1970s. It was a better aircraft for the role than the F/A-18A, but the naval version had the backing of the extraordinarily aggressive and effective McDonnell Douglas sales department and the benefit of being an ‘off-the-shelf’ product.

As an aside, the Canadian Hornet deal was almost dropped in favour of eighty secondhand Iranian F-14s Tomcats!

This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article, please donate here. It only takes a moment. Recommended donation £15.

7. Curtiss-Wright XF-87 Blackhawk (1948) ‘Wrong said Fred’

At the end of World War II Curtiss-Wright was the largest aircraft manufacturer in the world. Three years later, it was gone. The nail in the coffin was the Blackhawk. The name followed a company naming tradition begun in the early 1930s for including ‘hawk’; their most successful fighters were the Tomahawk, Kittyhawk and Warhawk. There was nothing particularly terrible about the XF-87, although four engines is unusual in a fighter*. The USAF ordered the fighter (modified from an attack-optimised design) before succumbing to the charms of the F-89 Scorpion and opting out.

It is often said that the company had been so busy in the mass production and incremental improvement of wartime aircraft types that they had not been able to respond to the jet revolution as well as their more forward-looking rivals. This is not entirely fair as they were working on some exceptionally fair as they worked on some remarkably radical concepts, especially the XP-55 Ascender.

Other aircraft have used the name ‘Blackhawk’: the Carr Special racing aircraft of the 1930s, the S-67 attack helicopter, and today’s famous S-70 series. I think there is another interwar type, which I’ve forgotten.

*The Swiss EFW N-20 Aiguillon had four engines and also failed to enter production

6. Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender (1943) ‘The Cursed Starship’

In late 1939, the US had a pretty lacklustre air force, generally equipped with obsolete or mediocre aircraft. With international war erupting around the world, it seemed a wise idea to rectify this situation, so the United States Army Air Corps issued R-40C, a requirement for radical new fighter concepts.

The emphasis on the aircraft as a high-speed gun platform with good visibility and acknowledgement that unconventional thinking was to be encouraged led many of the 50 entrants who replied to the requirement to adopt the pusher layout. The XP-55 was one of three designs given the thumbs-up to be produced in prototype form for evaluation.

Despite an utterly exotic appearance—canard foreplanes, a tricycle landing gear, a swept wing (for balance not to counter transonic drag), and a pusher engine—its performance was less-than-stellar. Far lower-risk contemporary designs offered superior performance. But a speculative improved laminar flow wing version seemed promising, so the programme carried on.

But the Ascender’s vicious stall characteristics could not be tamed, and the programme ended after the third prototype crashed at Wright Field during an air show. This was the second crash of only three aircraft built. The risks were too high, and the type offered nothing that conventional fighters couldn’t do better.

5. North American YF-93 ‘The Leggy Sabre’

THIS SITE NEEDS A SMALL DONATION FROM YOU TO CONTINUE. IF YOU’VE ENJOYED AN ARTICLE PLEASE DONATE HERE. IT ONLY TAKES A MOMENT. RECOMMENDED DONATION £15.

The superb F-86 Sabre design formed the basis of several aircraft, and the YF-93 was one of them. The rather handsome North American YF-93 was intended as a penetration fighter able to fly into the Soviet Union and destroy interceptors in their own airspace and as a secondary task escort to USAF bombers. It started as a modified F-86 but soon grew different enough to merit its own designation. Compared to the Sabre, it had far more fuel, twice the range, and was far bigger. With the SCR-720 search radar and six 20 mm (.79 in) cannon occupying the nose, the nose intake of the F-86 was replaced with flush-mounted NACA-designed side intakes. Though very elegant in appearance, they were ineffective and replaced with a more conventional intake.

  The arrival of a bomber, the B-47, with a similar top speed revealed the XF-93 to be too pedestrian in performance and the order for 118 aircraft was cancelled. It should be noted that the RAF accepted the Hawker Hunter into service in 1954, an aircraft of very similar top speed but with an inferior range.

4. Heinrich Pursuit ‘The Pursuit of hate’ (1917)

In 2020, nineteen months is insufficient time to develop and integrate a major software update on a warplane, but in 1917, it was a liftime in military aviation. The USA was only fighting in World War for nineteen months, but several attempts were made to develop a high-performance indigenous fighter from scratch. The Pursuit was powered by the 100 hp Gnome Monosoupape 9 Type B-2 nine-cylinder rotary engine and had an unequal-span biplane configuration.

Whereas the British Bristol F2.B of 1916 was named ‘Fighter’, a word which describes the mission to this day, Heinrich chose ‘Pursuit’ (the term ‘pursuit fighter’ in official terminology until the XP-92 of 1948).

Quite unlike the modern world in which the US will do almost anything to avoid buying foreign aircraft (see the tanker fiasco for example) the opposite was true in 1917. As with many fledgling warplane-producing nations, there was an initial preference for proven foreign designs. This is rather a shame as the Pursuit was a decent enough aeroplane of very clean aerodynamic form. Though not procured as a fighter it was seen to have potential as a fighter trainer. Two Mk II aircraft were ordered, and these were particularly fine, with a cleaned-up design offering a 77 kg weight reduction and inclusion of the more reliable Le Rhone 80 hp rotary engine.

3. Grumman XF10F Jaguar ‘The oldest swinger in town’ (1952)

As with most excellent carrier aircraft (certainly the Phantom II and Buccaneer among them), the road to the F-14 Tomcat was paved with the smoking carcasses of earlier abysmal efforts. If the F-14 were to write its own autobiography, it would speak of the Grumman XF10F Jaguar as its drunken, dysfunctional father, but a father nevertheless. Rambling mixed metaphors aside, the Jaguar was Grumman’s first attempt at a variable geometry warplane, and the first in the world to fly.

‘Swing-wings’ appealed to the US Navy, as they promised the docile take-off and landing characteristics of a straight-wing with the higher wing sweep required for trans- and super-sonic flight. Such promise could not be ignored, and the Navy ordered 112 Jaguars

We sell fantastic high-quality aviation-themed gifts here

It followed on from progress made by, among others, the Westland-Hill Pterodactyl IV of 1931, the British Vickers Wild Goose (1950) but more directly by the Messerschmitt P.1101 concept (unflown) and the experimental Bell X-5.

Test pilot Corwin ‘Corky’ Meyer, the only pilot to fly the Jaguar, found it as entertaining to fly “because there was so much wrong with it.” Among its issues: a dangerously unreliable XJ-40 experimental engine; poor stability; a cockpit canopy that opened in flight of its own accord and could not be shut and left the pilot unable to eject; shoddy manufacturing that – in one case a 5-inch screw was used where .4 should have been, mangling the delicate electronic circuitry within; jamming of the wing mechanism as poorly maintained hydraulic fluid turned to jelly. So much attention had been paid to getting the wing sweep mechanism right that other aspects had been neglected. The wing sweep mechanism was the only part of the Jaguar that worked flawlessly. Even by 1950s naval (and experimental) standards, this was clearly a terrible aeroplane, and after 32 test flights, the project was mercifully halted and the order cancelled.

2. Lockheed XF-90 ‘Screamin’ Jet Hawkins’

A competitor to the YF-93 above, the futuristic XF-90 was designed at the Skunk Works by Willis Moore Hawkins under the supervision of the US master of aircraft design and amateur arm wrestler Kelly Johnson. Though lacking the fame of Johnson, Hawkins was a significant figure. He worked on many projects, including the Constellation and F-104, and was instrumental in creating the C-130 and Abrams main battle tank. The XF-90 was not his finest moment, and its lukewarm performance made it lose out to the XF-88. Still, it was an extremely good-looking machine.

1. Vultee P-66 Vanguard ‘Brute 66’

If you described a modern fighter as ‘cancelled’ despite 146 being produced, you’d be labelled a wack-job and carted off to an anti-mask Flat Earther Trump rally to hang out with new friends. But this was at a time when fighter aircraft were produced in their thousands. Even the less than A-list Bell P-39 Airacobra production total was pushing 10,000 (so I think it is fair to include the Vanguard. I also want to include it as it seldom gets mentioned in aviation history books.

So sleek was the cowling on early examples that you might be forgiven for mistaking the Vanguard for having an inline engine. It was actually a radial, a 1200 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-33 Twin Wasp. However, this figure-hugging cowling caused the engine to overheat, and it was replaced with one with a more conventional appearance.

The P-66 had generally excellent handling and a decent performance. In 1940 the Swedish government ordered 144 as the V-48C. The V-48C had a heavier armament (two fifty-cals and four rifle-calibre machine guns) and improved high-altitude performance. Following the Pearl Harbor attack, the US decided there were better things to do with fighters than export them to a neutral country and an embargo was placed on aircraft for Sweden. Fifty were taken into the USAAF for both pursuit and pursuit training roles. Much of this order was then given to the Royal Air Force of Britain, who hated the type and decided to give it to China. The British planned to use them as a training force based in Canada. However, their tendency to ground-loop, their fragility, and the political goodwill of gifting them to China all contributed to the RAF letting them go. These airframes went on an epic adventure travelling to India in USAAF colours, where both testing and the perilous transit to China destroyed many of the aircraft.

Two Chinese squadrons took the P-66 into combat from 1943 but they took a mauling. When not being destroyed by friendly anti-aircraft forces unfamiliar with this rare shape, they were shot down by faster, more agile Japanese types using superior tactics. In 1943, they were replaced by P-40s. A few surviving P-66s were hidden in caves in Chungking for use in the civil war against Mao’s communists, but as late as 1947, they were generally still in their crates.

Have a look at The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 3 here.

Upgrade your pledge to The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes and see what you can get

If you haven’t yet pre-ordered your copy you can do it here

Where does the stereotype of the gay air steward come from? Is it true? Why do we sexualise air stewards? I spoke to the brilliant Phil Tiemeyer, author of ‘Plane Queer’ to find out more.

The stereotype of a male flight attendant is gay, how old is this stereotype and is it rooted in truth?

“The stereotype goes back to the first full decade of commercial air service and the dawn of the flight attendant career in aviation. We don’t know if any of the first stewards—who actually predated the first stewardesses in the US by a few years—were actually gay. But we do know from accounts in the airlines’ publications in the 1930s, including magazines produced for customers to peruse while in flight, that these men were perceived as less masculine than the pilots, mechanics, and managers who worked for the airlines (at least according to the relatively rigid standards of masculinity at the time). This perceived effeminacy led these men to be criticized or teased in various stories carried in publications like Pan American Airways’ Clipper magazine, which even made a comic strip about a steward named “Barney Bullarney” who gets made fun of and even physically abused by his coworkers. So, at the very least, we can say that homophobia in the industry dates back to the 1930s, even if we’re not sure whether homosexuality does.

Why does the job attract a large amount of gay men?

“The most clear answer to this question is that in-flight careers have never been family-friendly. It’s really hard for a pilot or flight attendant to be available for spouses and children when working. This was especially true in the so-called golden age of flying, from the 1950s through the 1970s, when airlines like Pan Am often required their crews to serve on weeks-long routes and also encouraged them at times to relocate to bases overseas. Single women could adapt to these demanding work norms better than others, as could gay men—especially back in the day when society discouraged gay men from having spousal commitments and families of their own.

The other crucial element, though, is that men serving in this job had to be relatively comfortable putting up with the homophobic attitudes of certain co-workers and customers. Several of my interviewees who worked from the 1950s through the 1970s asserted that certain pilots could be particularly demeaning to male flight attendants, ordering them to make coffee for them in break rooms the way a stewardess would or denying them access to the cockpit to deliver meals. Gay men were simply more used to, and thereby were a bit more tolerant than most straight men, of being targeted in such aggressive and emasculating ways.”

Why do we sexualise flight attendants?

“I think we sexualize flight attendants because we sexualize flying. Plenty of Freudian psychologists have for decades explained that most aviation fanatics are attracted to the adrenaline rush of high-speed travel and the penetration or conquering of the sky. These sorts of sensations aren’t too far off from how sexual pleasure is experienced by some here on the ground. Already in the 1930s Hollywood was turning this erotic attraction to flight in the direction of stewardesses, with the first movies in which a stewardess served as the romantic lead coming out in that decade. And once the US’s censorship of pornography was liberalized by the late 1960s, the first X-rated stewardess movie was made.

It’s therefore not surprising that when the US Supreme Court ruled in 1971 that all US airlines had to hire men on an equal basis as women for the flight attendant job, this created a new sub-type of gay male heartthrob: the steward. What was then the only national gay magazine, the Advocate, celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision by expressing gratitude that gay men would now have their own sex objects in the sky to ogle at while flying…not a very enlightened response to an important case for workplace equality!”

This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donatehere. It only takes a moment. Recommended donation £15.

There is an idea that flight attendants are promiscuous, is this rooted in truth?

“The promiscuity that has been associated with both male and female flight attendants is rooted in the fact that the vast majority of workers in this field during aviation’s golden years were hired when they were young and had no families. This demographic, sexologists will point out, are typically going to have the most sex in a society. Plus, when you’re able to host sex partners in your own hotel room and have scheduled layovers in the world’s most cosmopolitan party cities, you have even more sexual opportunity than your peers. Of course, though, the choices about the frequency of one’s sexual activity depended on the individual, and my interviewees reported a wide spectrum of choices about how often they had sex. Sex was, almost always, one’s personal choice.

That said, especially female flight attendants were sometimes pressured into sex they didn’t want to have: from customers somewhat rarely, but from pilots and airline managers more frequently. Such incidents of sexual harassment or rape most commonly went unreported, since the airlines did not foster a culture of sexual responsibility among their employers nor did they institute protections for workers to come forward and report misconduct by more powerful co-workers.”

Did male flight attendants face any discrimination or peculiar difficulties?

“They absolutely did. Men were nearly completely excluded from this job by the mid-1950s. That’s when two main US airlines which traditionally hired men, Pan Am and Eastern Airlines, stopped hiring them. Thereafter, a couple of airlines like TWA or Northwest Airlines hired men as pursers (flight attendant positions with more demanding administrative responsibilities) for their international routes, but the percentage of flight attendants who were men shrank to just 3-5% by the late 1960s. The reason Eastern and Pan Am stopped hiring men is due to homophobia in the 1950s: increasing fears on the part of the airline that customers would find these men undesirable. Delta Airlines even confessed in court documents that their short-lived attempts to hire men around that time ended out of fear that customers would perceive their male flight attendants as gay and feel threatened by them.”

How were male flight attendants involved in the civil rights movement?

“The biggest direct impact of male flight attendants (or at least aspiring male flight attendants) on civil rights was the Supreme Court case I noted above from the very early 1970s. The case name was Celio Diaz, Jr. v. Pan American Airways. Diaz was a Miami resident who really wanted to work as a flight attendant. But a Pan Am employee in the hiring office refused to let him apply, claiming the position was for women only. This, however, was 1967, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act was now in effect—the one pressed on Washington politicians by the African American civil rights movement in order to end segregation and workplace discrimination based on race. The workplace protections in the Civil Rights Act also prevented sex-based discrimination, so Diaz was able to claim that the airline’s refusal to consider his application was illegal. It took about four years for the case to be decided, but when Diaz finally won, it meant that all airlines in the US would be forced to hire men on an equal basis with women.

I think of Diaz v. Pan Am as a sort of stealth victory for gender-queer people in America: it meant that men who aspired to jobs that were notionally ‘women’s work‘ would be protected, and so would the far more numerous women desiring to do ‘men’s work.’ Of course, though, you didn’t have to be too queer—and certainly not gay, just as Diaz himself was not—to want to do such work. It was really America’s overly rigid sex norms that needed correcting, and Diaz was the right kind of plaintiff to start to make this happen.”

In the 1960s were male and female flight attendants paid the same?

“This is a complicated question. First, remember that there were only a few men working in the 1960s, due to the homophobia of the 1950s. Those who did work in the industry were covered by the same work contracts as women, the ones negotiated by their labor unions. Thus, on paper, men and women were paid the same. That said, men had two distinct pay advantages. First, at airlines like TWA and Northwest that hired men only for purser positions, these jobs paid more, consistent with their increased administrative responsibilities. Second, men in the 1960s were free to keep their jobs as long as they wanted to work, at least up to or beyond age 60, which meant they were accruing decent amounts of seniority and therefore getting better pay and benefits than newcomers to the field. Women, however, were actively forced out of these jobs at a very early moment in their careers. Most of them left within 18 months, since almost all US airlines forbid them from continuing to work when they married (these women were very eligible marriage material, after all). For the women who tried to make a career of it, most US airlines also imposed additional policies which fired them when they reached age 32 or 35. It was these overt forms of discrimination against women that kept them underpaid compared to their male colleagues.”

NEW DEAL

Upgrade your pledge to The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes and see what you can get

Tea Towel and Badge with Signed Book

A high quality tea towel decorated with the original ‘blood chit’ design handed to British aircrews flying missions over Soviet controlled regions in World War II. Disclaimer: We cannot guarantee the safety of aircrew who use these if downed over modern Russia. 

PLUS:

• WW2 replica badge
• Signed first edition
• Your name printed in the book
• Ebook

If you haven’t yet pre-ordered your copy you can do it here

In what ways has the flight attendant community helped gay rights?

“In the late 1940s and early 1950s, gay men were finding out by word of mouth that steward positions were open and somewhat welcoming to gay men. Thus, at a time when US society was actively trying to keep gays out of work (all government, military, and defense industry jobs were declared off-limits), there was this one place where men could still find work and see the world—at least until Pan Am and Eastern closed the doors to these jobs. But when Celio Diaz re-opened this profession to men, it very quickly went back to being a place where gay men could still find jobs, earn a steady income, and partake in ample travel opportunities.”

What is the biggest myth about male flight attendants?

“The grandest of all flight attendant myths is that a gay flight attendant, Air Canada’s Gaetan Dugas, was the ‘Patient Zero’ of the AIDS crisis and actually (allegedly) was the first person to bring HIV/AIDS to the United States. My book and other impressive work by Canadian historian Richard McKay shows definitively that Dugas was nothing more than a salacious scapegoat for a panicked America. The salacious stories of his prolific sex life, coupled with his early diagnosis with AIDS and his persistence in having sex after the diagnosis, made him exactly the sort of villain that Americans wanted to blame for this ‘gay cancer’ (which was the original name for the disease). The reality, as we’re again seeing during the COVID pandemic, is that pandemics run their course with unrelenting ferocity. It doesn’t come down to a few ‘super-spreaders’ as to whether the disease will spread far and wide. They certainly don’t help things, but they don’t cause the pandemic.”

What should I have asked you?

“Which airline had the best flight attendant uniforms. While there were other uniforms in the US that were far more eccentric, I’m partial to the women’s outfits designed by the famed Florentine designer Emilio Pucci in 1965 for Braniff Airways.

Pucci at the time was designing brilliantly colored casual-yet-formal dresses for the likes of Sophia Loren and Jackie Kennedy, so it was quite the thing for this relatively small Texas-based airline and its mostly-Texan flight attendant corps to wear these colorful designer outfits.

Pucci brought sophistication to an upstart, provincial carrier, though I’m not thrilled that the airline’s marketing team refused to keep things classy: they turned these practical and stylish outfits into a striptease show—the airline released commercials called ‘The Air Strip’ promising that a stewardess would discard an additional item of Pucci’s multi-layered outfits every time she walked down the aisle.

This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donate here. It only takes a moment. Recommended donation £15.

It truly seems that female flight attendants circa 1965 endured what seemed on the exterior to be the best of times for the profession, while they simultaneously were the worst of times.

The men I interviewed each had their own favorite uniforms, and thankfully, their return to the profession by the early 1970s forced airlines to tone down the overt eroticization of their stewardesses through their uniforms.

In the early 1970s, Pan Am had hired high-end designers of their own to create a new male flight attendant outfit that complemented the women’s uniforms. They were elegant, crisp, modern suits inspired by Carnaby Street fashions and even had matching umbrellas. One Pan Am steward confessed that he loved walking through airport terminals wearing the suit, because he knew every gay man watching him would be both turned on and envious when they saw him.

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

Phil Tiemeyer is the author of Plane Queer: the history of men working as flight attendants. Beginning with the founding of the profession in the late 1920s and continuing into the post-September 11 era, Plane Queer examines the history of men who joined workplaces customarily identified as female-oriented. It examines the various hardships these men faced at work, paying particular attention to the conflation of gender-based, sexuality-based, and AIDS-based discrimination. Order a copy here.